Posted by MikeT23 on 4/9/2013 6:47:00 PM (view original):Well, on that note, my first marriage was family and friends brought together and proclaiming to them that I and another person have decided to be with each other forever. Two good years, two bad years and a divorce.

My second marriage was in Vegas. At The Little Chapel by the Courthouse. I think the receptionist was our witness. It hasn't been all ice cream and candy but we passed our 12th year 4 months ago.

So much for the importance of declaring committment in front of family and friends.

Ok, so the rule according to Mike T.
When I'm having my 24th anniversary dinner with my wife next week, I'll pass on your best to her.

Just saying standing in front of family, friends and God(if that's your thing) while proclaiming your committment to another person doesn't amount to a hill of beans of the relationship itself isn't meant to be.

Which is kind of irrelevant to the discussion of people, that want to get married, but can't get married, and their relationship is meant to be. Which is supposedly the whole purpose of the fight to get married.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/9/2013 6:47:00 PM (view original):Well, on that note, my first marriage was family and friends brought together and proclaiming to them that I and another person have decided to be with each other forever. Two good years, two bad years and a divorce.

My second marriage was in Vegas. At The Little Chapel by the Courthouse. I think the receptionist was our witness. It hasn't been all ice cream and candy but we passed our 12th year 4 months ago.

So much for the importance of declaring committment in front of family and friends.

Ok, so the rule according to Mike T.
When I'm having my 24th anniversary dinner with my wife next week, I'll pass on your best to her.

Just saying standing in front of family, friends and God(if that's your thing) while proclaiming your committment to another person doesn't amount to a hill of beans of the relationship itself isn't meant to be.

Which is kind of irrelevant to the discussion of people, that want to get married, but can't get married, and their relationship is meant to be. Which is supposedly the whole purpose of the fight to get married.

I find it very relevant since you made a point of the importance of standing in front of friends/family and declaring your committment.

Standing in front of friends/family has no bearing whatsoever on your committment. Kind of like a ring and a license

And I'm glad you used "supposedly". Because I contend, if you take away the legal benefits, the "fight" is a lot less hardy.

So because you don't find something important, it makes it not important to others?

If there were no legal benefits to getting married, I'm still getting married to my fiance. And if everyone else is getting legal benefits through marriage, and I'm not because of something like race, sexual orientation, age, etc, I would be be "fighting" for them.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/10/2013 11:55:00 AM (view original):I feel the need to repeat every few pages that the issue is not about if it is a good idea for gays to get married.

This is about giving more power to the Federal Government and taking it away from the people of the states that made decisions about it.

You can see by the arguments that people are not talking in grand sweeps. They are talking about minor technical issues.

You can be outraged that gays cannot marry, but you cannot claim a serious level of discrimination that impacts gays.

I can claim that there is a level of discrimination that impacts gays. Whether or not it's "serious" is up for debate. It seems many homosexuals feel it is. But federal courts have stepped in during our country's history to rectify issues that deal with discrimination.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/10/2013 12:03:00 PM (view original):There is clearly a level of discrimination in gay marraige laws.

Not every discrimination is actionable by the federal government.

Everytime we allow Federal Courts to make a decision for the whole nation the Constitution suffers a little bit.

The battle between the 10th and 14th is real!

It is true that my argument has more to do with the social issue in general, and not so much whether it's a federal or state issue. I do understand your argument, and I don't necessarily disagree with it in general. I can be upset that a state passed a particular law, but it doesn't mean I should demand the federal government to overturn it. In this particular case, I do think they should step in, as I think the discrimination is severe enough.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/10/2013 12:03:00 PM (view original):There is clearly a level of discrimination in gay marraige laws.

Not every discrimination is actionable by the federal government.

Everytime we allow Federal Courts to make a decision for the whole nation the Constitution suffers a little bit.

The battle between the 10th and 14th is real!

It is true that my argument has more to do with the social issue in general, and not so much whether it's a federal or state issue. I do understand your argument, and I don't necessarily disagree with it in general. I can be upset that a state passed a particular law, but it doesn't mean I should demand the federal government to overturn it. In this particular case, I do think they should step in, as I think the discrimination is severe enough.

And I don't think discrimination exists at all.

What to you think about high occupancy lanes on the highway? You know, the ones where single drivers are not allowed to use? Does a driver somehow pay less taxes because he doesn't have a passenger?

IF you deny someone of your business because of a persons race, sex, or sexual orientation, THEN you'd be one of those things. IF you're ok with someone doing that, it makes you an ***.

I would not personally care to deny anyone access to my business based upon race, gender, or sexual preference.

However, I believe any person should have the freedom to decline business from any other person for any reason they wish - even the ones you mention here.

The reason is simple: No one should force you to do business with anyone, ever. You have a choice of who you want to do business with, and so does everyone else.

In your ice cream shop example, the customer can choose not to frequent that particular ice cream establishment - for any reason they want - and choose any number of other options instead. The could go to another ice cream shop. They can buy ice cream at the store and eat it at home. They can simply decide not to have ice cream that day.

By the same token, the ice cream shop owner can also refuse to serve ice cream to whomever they wish - for any reason they want - and choose to serve to other customers instead. They could even refuse to serve anyone and close early or shut down permanently if they want.

To make a law that says the ice cream shop must serve anyone who wants to be a customer is wrong, because it takes away the owners' freedom and makes the exchange unequal, and that isn't how a free market system works.

If you don't pass a driver's test, you can't get a license to drive. You don't get a license because you're a danger to other people on the road. It's not discrimination against people who can't drive.

The high occupancy lanes were built as a way to alleviate traffic, get more cars off the road, and help with pollution. It's not discrimination against people who don't carpool. It's a way to help society as a whole.

Not allowing gays to marry each other has no bearing on anyone else. It does not hurt others, we're not protecting anyone by not allowing it. It's done because we feel marrying someone is a "straight thing." That's discrimination.